Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

mpicpp sends this report from Ars Technica:
"Protests against tech giants and their impact on the San Francisco Bay Area economy just got personal. According to an anonymous submission on local news site Indybay, an unknown group of protesters targeted a Google engineer best known for helping to develop the company's self-driving car. ... The protest against Levandowski came the same day that the San Francisco Municipal Transit Authority (SFMTA) voted for the first time to take action regulating Google, Facebook, Apple, and a number of other large tech companies that shuttle workers in private, Wi-Fi-enabled buses from the Bay Area to points south in Silicon Valley."

In 2012 the United States produced 230 tonnes of gold, making it the third-largest gold-producing nation, behind China and Australia. South Africa (that's actually a country) is 5th, while the Democratic Republic of the Congo isn't even in the top 10.

Most gold is used for jewelry, not electronics, so go protest a freaking jeweler.

they have valid points about the Congo and rising rent caused by google's self-driving cars spreading their high-earning workers into lower-rent neighborhoods.

The protesters certainly do not have valid points. The rising rents in the SF Bay Area are caused by fixed supply despite growing demand, which in turn is caused by the relentless opposition to constructing any new urban housing there.

The far left in the SF Bay Area has fought tooth and nail, for decades, to disallow any dense urban housing construction. That is why rents are increasing. Demand increases every year while supply is fixed.

From the protesters' flier:

Levandowski is now making his contribution to the further sterilization and gentrification of Downtown Berkeley and Shattuck Avenue [by sponsoring new condominium buildings]. The proposed project is a testament to the arrogance, disconnection, and luxury of the ruling class. Growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people allows them, somehow...

Here the protesters will not allow the construction of new urban housing. When rents continue to go up, which is what the protesters are causing by their own actions, they will complain again that rents are too high.

The protesters are causing additional carbon emissions and environmental destruction. If they successfully prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then obviously that will force those people to live in suburban housing (because people don't protest new construction there), and suburban housing has vastly worse carbon emissions that urban.

Newsflash: if you prevent the construction of dense urban housing, then that doesn't cause the potential occupants just to disappear magically. Instead, it causes them to live in suburban housing instead, which is far worse for the environment in every regard. Suburban residents usually have triple the carbon emissions or more, of urban residents.

Furthermore, if the protesters manage to shut down the bus (!?), then obviously that will force some people to drive which will contribute to the gridlock on the 101, and will cause thousands of cars on the gridlocked 101 to idle even longer during their travels.

valid points about the Congo

If you care about the Congo, as the protesters claim to do, then you should send part of your money as charity to the Congo. It does not help the people there, to boycott their only product and to boycott the only major export from the entire country. It causes economic devastation to a country to prevent its exports. That is why a blockade on exports is forbidden by the UN as an international crime.

If exports are exploitation, then the Israelis are doing the Palestinians a big favor by blockading the ports at the Gaza strip. It is preventing the palestinians from being "exploited" by selling what they have on the international market.

It's nice of you to try to find something positive about the protesters. However, in my opinion, the protesters are just stupid. What they are doing is silly, poorly thought out, unintentionally destructive, and it causes precisely the problems which they are trying to cure.

It never went out of fashion. The difference is there used to be a firewall against fanaticism: upward mobility.

The Great Recession reduced the median net worth of American Household's by 39%, and 85% of self-identified middle class people say it has become harder to maintain a middle-class lifestyle over the past decade (citation: 2012, Pew Research Center, "Fewer, Poorer, Gloomier: The Lost Decade of the Middle Class"). The Great Recession also wiped out 15 years of growth in the median household income in the US (citation: Wikipedia, 'Household income in the United States',http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States), with the median continuing to drop even after economic growth resumed, although truth be told median household income was stagnant through the first decade of this century.

If you want to know how politically stable this country is, look at those median numbers. If they drop or stagnate while average incomes rise, that means the mass of people in the country are experiencing economic insecurity, and a certain proportion of those people are apt to be radicalized -- toward both ends of the political spectrum.

Mostly the housing collapse reduced the average "net worth" of American households, as a good many people had unsustainably inflated home equity.

Did you know, the average income of a 1%er in 1995 dropped by about 25% by 2005? No, I'm not taling about "the average income of the 1%", I'm talking about the specific people who were 1%ers in 1995. High incomes tend to be unstable, and it's very common for people to spend only a year or two in the top 1% of incomes before the winds of fate change.

The Great Recession really sucks, and the investment banks have never been held to account for their strong role in creating it [...], but don't lay all the world's ills at its doorstep. We're still far better off economically than the 70s!

In spite of a far more educated workforce I have serious doubts that that's true.

Adjusted for inflation, the median household income in 1975? $45,788
The median household income in 2012? $51,017

But wait you (might) say. That means we're better off now....except for one small detail. We're measuring household income.

In the 1970's that was (generally) one persons income, in 2012 that's two people's income. In terms of physical goods I think we compare quite favorably, but factoring in things like housing, energy and food? Not so much.

Well, we don't have 10% inflation nor gas lines. And remember houses are bigger now - the ratio of rooms to people in houses has doubled, I think, with it becoming rare for children to share a bedroom. There's also buying power, which inflation adjusting only loosely accounts for. In terms of anything computerized, or just about anything medical, we have miracles by 70s standards. SO I'd argue that physical goods, entertainment, housing, and energy are all better now, and food is no worse, plus we have a stable currency for the moment. Plus it's quite common for a middle class family to have a maid and a gardener now (much of the second persons income goes to replace the work that second person once did in the home, naturally enough).

Remember, money us just the intermediary - for the most part the stuff (goods and services) we have is the stuff we collectively produce, and we produce far more than we did 40 years ago.

Exactly. My parents and all their cousins grew up in houses with about 100 sq feet per person. Three bedrooms, 7 kids, etc. Sure, they were able to live on dad's salary, but mom's entire day was spent toiling so they could make it work. If you want to live like they did in the 70s (and 60s and 50s), you certainly can on one income. But it won't be pretty, because it wasn't pretty then either. We have two income households because we have greater expectations for standards of living.

What you're doing here is interesting. You've created a basket of goods, and argued that those things are cheaper for a given quality. And it's an important point that you *can* do this -- but it's tricky.

Take Elvis' house. Elvis was rich, but he was not a cultural sophisticate, except possibly when it came to music. I can point to counter-examples. I once worked in a non-profit that was chock full of scions of elite Boston families -- Forbes's, Cabots, Lowells, etc. These are people whose ancestors made fortunes in the 1700s and handed it down generation to generation, and patterned their consumption patterns on those of the English aristocracy. Their homes aren't large or flashy, but they're unmistakably old money, and almost couldn't be reproduced at any price today. Everything is old, handmade and of fabulous quality, selected to be handed down to the next generation.

Now that's an extreme example (as extreme as Elvis's house), but it shows there's a flip side the the "everything's cheaper" argument. Everything *is* cheaper, not only in the sense of price, but in the sense of durability and serviceability (with a few exceptions like autos). I'm 53 years old, and there's been a shift in the very concept of quality over my lifetime that makes comparisons tricky, a shift from use-centered quality to sales-centric quality. Look at the original IBM PC-XT, obviously a ridiculously underpowered by today's standards, but focus on the build quality for a moment. It's almost exotic by today's standards, and it's built to last for ten years or more, to be serviced and upgraded. In comparison the smartphone I carry is incomparably more powerful, it is designed to be thrown away when it's non-replaceable li-ion battery starts to flag after about two years.

There's been a shift in the way we live our lives, and it's something of a mixed bag. We have to buy stuff differently now, because it's all designed with a very short service life (again except for cars, which are a huge bright spot). I can fill my house with attractive Ikea furniture at a bargain price, and it'll make my Brahmin friends' hand crafted mahogany stuff look dowdy in comparison -- but I'll have to replace most of it in five years, and they'll pass their dining room set down to yet another generation of descendants.

A lot of our enhanced buying power comes at the cost of getting on the replacement treadmill. I bought a $400 flat screen HDTV two years ago, and I just replaced it with another $400 flat screen HDTV. Meanwhile the 1970s Sony Trinitron in the spare bedroom keeps going. The point is that comparing what you could buy in 1970s to today is complicated, because our notion of quality has changed to one based on the assumption that stuff is disposable.

and that is this guys fault personally and somehow not the fault of the protesters who likely have their own phones and computers and used the same resources to print the very fliers that they used to protest this one guy who is just designing things and is really, in no way, more responsible for the economic state of the world than any of the people standing outside his house.

If you have a problem with this kind of economic inequality then you have a long journey ahead of you. Bitching about one engineer and the fact that he can cary a baby and check his cell phone at the same time (but what about the LIFE he carries in his HAND!) is sure as shit not going to change any of that.

Picketing this guys house doesn't solve anything. He's enriching the world with his work. He's not beating child slaves in some African diamond mine, he's not indenturing people to manufacture tennis shoes.
These people are doing the most convenient thing possible to act like they care without actually leaving the city or county they live in.
The protestors would be better served to use that energy to plant a tree and get over themselves.

Do you understand, that living in the first world, you are likely richer than 90% if not 99% of the rest of the population? How much of your wealth are you willing to give up in the name of inequality?

This isn't about being a Luddite, it's about pointing out the economic disparity at play in the world.

Baloney. All of these people, both protesters and Googlers, are in the economic top 10% of America. Otherwise they would have never been able to afford to live in SF in the first place. This is about the rich whining that someone is slightly richer.

Indeed, the protesters weren't complaining about rent, but about how the engineer "is building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control, and automation", that the designer of a condo he wants to build "[have] created military installations, malls, and hospitals", that they are destroying the economy by "growing their own vegetables in a rooftop garden and selling them to other wealthy people"... They talk about how they stalk him in his morning routine and that when he descended the stairs of his home with his baby in his arms, he "appeared in this moment like the robot he admits that he is."

They also go on some insane rant about mining and that "Anthony Levandowski has never worked in a pit mine"...

These people come off as a bunch of creepy stalker nutjobs. If I was their target, I would legitimately fear for the safety of my family.

Naw. That is Sf, they are deeply nuts there. All that needs to happen is for Google and other companies to leave. Austin Tx is nice I hear as is Cary North Carolina, South Florida also has nice weather and low housing costs.

As opposed to SF? I think this story shows that SF is not known for overly rational people. Austin is is home to a lot of tech companies, Research Triangle is home to Red Hat and SAS, South and central Florida is home to a growing bio tech industry as well as space tech.I think you are a bit clueless in this case.

So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

They probably just wanted revenue so they decided to tax the buses.

They aren't earning any revenue from the buses -- state law prohibits the city from earning a profit on the bus stop fees, so the fees equal the administrative overhead to collect them.

So they're being too eco-friendly with the bus rides? Or everyone's jealous about the benefits? Or public transportation isn't crowded enough? I don't get it but I have the sneaking suspicion that these people are morons.

I think you've missed the point. Dozens of companies in the peninsula have their own dedicated bus lines. The bus-to-person ratio is quite high, and this is not as eco-friendly as you might think. It also causes congestion in the city, and confusion at the shared bus stops (which are owned by the city of SF), both of passengers and of citizens looking for a bus they can actually ride.

The city taxing the bus services allows maintenance to be applied to the extra load of the stops as well as planning for the increased traffic these systems create. I think it is quite reasonable.

It doesn't necessarily beat having those people all driving themselves. Buses take a lot more fuel. It's only when they run at a certain capacity that you have ROI. That's not a given when picking up individuals. A single bus also causes a lot more congestion than a car -- it pretty much makes the entire lane behind the bus untenable in areas with lots of red lights. Again, it's only net-positive, congestion-wise, for a specific number of people.

In case I'm unclear: I'd much rather be on a road with 1,000 people driving 1,000 cars, than 500 buses with 2 people in them. I used n=2 in this example, but I'm thinking even for n=6, it's a net loss. I don't actually know the value of n.

How does that work? They force their employees to live near each other? Say I live 5 miles out from any other employee. How is me having a vehicle to myself saving in congestion? I get what you're saying, and see how it can be applicable some of the time, but the fact of the matter is, a private bus won't let anyone on 'til it gets to its first stop. You've already lost there, as a proper bus would pick up all the people needing a ride from point A to point B. Imagine if every company did this. You'd have

True, but what I think the protesters are thinking is that if companies eliminated the shuttles (or shrank their radius so that SF was outside of it), then most workers, rather than endure a multi-hour commute each day, would simply move closer to work (and, more specifically, outside of SF city limits).
It might increase traffic in/around Mountain View, but the companies could run local shuttles with a 10-mile (instead of 35-mile) radius to alleviate that problem. But it would no longer be SF's problem.

I realize that it's easier to be an asshole than think and read, but failing to educate yourself makes you "just" an asshole.

I live near Google and see these buses all the time. Many times these buses are empty, and driving to stops with no people. It's not a door to door limousine service, it's a bus route paid for by private funds. Just like any other bus service, there are peak and off hours. The difference between public and private is that routes can be changed when the pubic sees money being wasted. Google may keep a bus route for 1 person they believe "key" in a project, and reschedule buses at will.

Buses are much larger than cars (obviously) and they block traffic and cause congestion which omits what they are supposed to be doing (relieving congestion and carbon emissions). When you have numerous buses blocking a lane for several minutes, it's not doing any one other than the company and employee any favors.

In terms of city revenue, it also hurts. Tax revenue for cities that house these companies suffer as a result of people _not_ moving closer to work. They don't need to move closer to work, because they have a free shuttle service and get counted as working on the bus.

It also makes the companies more money, because by shuttling people in they don't have to pay the same rates.

The excuse that it's "Greener" is questionable at best, if not dishonest. It's convenient for the companies and more profitable for the companies. If you truly believe it's greener show me some stats that prove that since these bus services started there has been improvement in traffic in the bay area. You can't, because there has been no such improvement.

if it takes a private bus to get them to stop driving, the issue is that they're already looking down upon "regular" people, and that is not to be rewarded.

Bullshit. Lots of people don't take regular buses because:

1) The schedule is not as regular as you might hope2) Hard to work on most public buses (not good seating for it or network access, and you may well not get a seat).3) Total time taken might be very long if you have to transfer, and the bus is not going exactly where you are so there's some walking component when you reach home.4) Bus schedules at night get worse.

The company buses potentially solve all those issues:

1) Buses will be more regular as they have fewer (or possibly just one) stop.

2) Seats meant for working and enough buses so that you can get a seat.

3) Total time taken is greatly reduced and it's going exactly where you are, so no wasted time walking after the bus stops.

4) Can run buses on demand.

Really the reason these companies have buses is because employees can get hours more work in per day. That's also better for the employees because they do not necessarily have to stay at work late if they can finish up things on the bus.

There's nothing elitist at all, it's just that a bus tailored to working serves people far better than public transport ever can. There's nothing wrong with this and as many have pointed out it is reducing congestion for everyone and ever keeping the public buses less crowded for rush hour commuters.

I started thinking to myself, "Wow, I only live a mile from where they pick folks up, and they drop me off about a mile from work" Maybe SF should take into consideration that non-goog-app-fac employees might want to ride on the same line. These companies should consider allowing non-employees to pay a fare to use the busses.

Except for the fact that there is no city bus that runs from San Francisco or Berekely to Mountain View, so the competition would be with CalTrain which is owned by Amtrak. As for Bus service, anyone who does the SF - South Bay commute will be familiar with Bauer's busses and they are a private company doing exactly what you are saying can't be done. So, the whole "can't compete with gubment" thing is a bit stupid in this context.

In Ontario we have a train/bus service called Go Transit. Regulated by the province. The goal is pulling workers into Toronto and out of Toronto without them driving. It works great and is expanding. The only thing it sucks for is people not working the 9 to 5.

Google probably does not want to run a public bus service. That is not their business. There would be many other legal, insurance and bureaucratic hurdles.

Google does this for their employees. I can understand why everyone would want to ride on Google's luxury buses. Heck, I would like to. It must be frustrating that they pick up and drop off so close to your own endpoints. I can sympathize.

I started thinking to myself, "Wow, I only live a mile from where they pick folks up, and they drop me off about a mile from work" Maybe SF should take into consideration that non-goog-app-fac employees might want to ride on the same line. These companies should consider allowing non-employees to pay a fare to use the busses.

Better yet, have these tech titans fund some Bay Area high speed commuter rail.

Does San Francisco not run buses on the same lines? If not, the problem is with the city, not Google.

The problem is with the entire region. San Francisco buses can only run in San Francisco, with limited service to a couple recreational areas a few miles away. The rest of the region doesn't want to get caught up in San Francisco's myriad governance issues, so they operate their own transit systems. There are only a couple systems that cross the entire region: BART [bart.gov] and Caltrain. [caltrain.com]

So, to get from my home to Google via existing transit lines, I'd have to take a bus to Caltrain, then take Caltrain to Mountain View, and then take a bus to Google. The pretty good regional trip planner [511.org] says that it would take me 4 buses, 2 hours, and $13 to get from my home in San Francisco to Google, even with rush hour express service. It's cheaper if I get monthly passes and take my bike onto Caltrain, but it still takes a lot of time.

If I worked at Google I wouldn't want you on my bus. Google is a big machine. As someone who also works for a big machine, I'm only here for the perks and I have no interest in sharing with outsiders.

You want my perks? Come break your back with me and work 60 hours a week...then the bus rides, free food, nap pods, etc. will seem less like privileges and more like justifications for your insanity...

This is a very good example of people who like to call them selves "Liberal" not being very liberal. Technology will advance and apparently some people don't like it in the same way some other people don't like gay marriage or pot smoking.

Liberal and "progressive" are not as synonymous as much as the left-wingers would love to portray. I have less problems with Liberals as they tend to try to have rational (even if I disagree with them) reasons for their positions, but Progressives are usually the ones proclaiming one-offs and anecdotes as "the way things actually are". Therefore, they extrapolate their cause and attack people doing their job for being "evil", and filled with "hate" simply because they don't agree. There is no logic, and th

There are men and women in the Congo, slaving away in giant pits in order to extract gold and other precious metals from the earth. This gold will go into phones and tablets made by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft

Unless they all walked there and are wearing homemade clothes from home grown cotton weaved by hand into fabric, and "printed" their flyers by hand by writing them using sustainably harvested carbon pencils on home made papyrus, and organized the protest through word of mouth (which was probably aided by the fact that they all live in the same cave) rather than using email and iPhones, they are being disingenuous by protesting against resources used for technology that they themselves use and enjoy.

It's typical moron drivel trying to drive their point home by attempting to induce guilt rather than by rational argument. It's a last ditch effort at trying to effect some kind of change in the world outside so they don't have to change themselves.

I don't particularly agree with these guys, but the argument of "you're not a ridiculously exaggerated shining beacon of the ideals I lay upon you, so your argument is worthless" is pretty piss poor.

So if I stand in front of you eating a steak and tell you that you need to be a vegetarian because your meat eating habits are cruel to animals, you wouldn't find me to be the least bit disingenuous? Realistically, I don't need to be a vegetarian to think that killing animals for food is bad, and really, why shouldn't I tell you that what you're doing is wrong even as I do the same thing myself?

Talking on an iPhone while giving a Google engineer a digitally printed flyer to tell him that his use of technology is forcing men and women in the Congo into slavery to mine gold certainly seems to be diluting the message. If they'd just stuck with things like privacy concerns, worries about robot cars on the roads, etc, that's one thing, but to tell someone that his use of technology is bad, while they are using much of the same technology themselves just comes across as hypocritical.

There are men and women in the Congo, slaving away in giant pits in order to extract gold and other precious metals from the earth. This gold will go into phones and tablets made by companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Anthony Levandowski has never worked in a pit mine nor will his children...

And maybe if you would let him finish working on his robots, then no one's children will! Alas, it seems that no mind can be flexible enough to wrap itself around the reasoning of narrow-minded. I mean, these protesters' points are not so wrong, the problem is merely that their reasoning is so not complete - and yet they take complete action!

I wonder if ignorance must remain unaware of itself in order to survive...

The protesters are part of a group that are upset about gentrification. In the event that you don't know what that is, I'll explain since all the posters so far clearly didn't read the actual article (another day on/.). Quite simply -- it's when people with significant wealth and/or income move into an area of people with less wealth/income and thereby drive up real estate prices beyond what the established population can potentially afford. Hint: property taxes start going up and the established population can't afford to buy/rent a new place in their current neighborhood and possibly can't afford their current residence anymore and will be forced to move potentially far from where they currently live. For families, this is a non-trivial challenge.

They've been protesting Google buses because this has put gentrification onto the fast track by making areas more attractive to Google employees that otherwise wouldn't have been due to transportation headaches. Getting a company funded ride straight to work is not a small deal.

Note I'm not taking a side on the issue, just pointing out what's going on. Essentially you have people that can see the time coming when they will have to move and it's directly the result of Google and its employees. I won't use the word "fault" because that implies wrongdoing.

The tactics of the protesters are clearly questionable, but I'll leave that up for the ensuing discussion.

Please note that rising property taxes is not a big issue in California because of Prop 13, which prevents properties from being reassessed until their next transfer of ownership. People who already own houses in the neighborhood will not see their property taxes go up any more than they otherwise would. Prop 13 was passed specifically to prevent owners from being forced out of their homes by rising property taxes, and it does a good job. Gentrification may increase the cost of living in other ways (e.g. by replacing affordable local stores with more expensive ones) but it will also help the local city's finances and help to pay for better public services.

The people who really lose out to gentrification are renters, who certainly can be priced out of their neighborhood. Even rent control and other tenant protections can be worked around, if nothing else by landlords selling to owners who plan to live there rather than rent out the property.

I certainly wouldn't say that Prop 13 is an unalloyed good, but you're partly misunderstanding how it works. The assessment only goes up- or only goes up by more than 2%/year- when the property changes ownership, i.e. when it's sold or inherited, not when it changes occupants. This means it has the kind of effect you're describing mostly for owner occupied housing, not for rental apartments. What it really does is to give a tax advantage to owners who have owned a long time, whether they live in the prop

There is a SHIT LOAD in this particular protest that has nothing at all to do with the gentrification issue that you describe. Even if it were about gentrification how does it help to protest one particular engineer and then call him out for his work on self driving cars like those are somehow related to the problem ever mind all the crap about pit mines in the congo and blaming this guy for them rather than any of the protesters (many of whom certainly own devices containing materials mined in the same ex

At the risk of drifting to one side or the other -- I think you're oversimplifying. While gentrification is not a new phenomenon, this is one of the first times I've ever heard of people reacting so viscerally to it. I think the reason this stings so badly for existing non-Google employee residents is because it's not happening due to a new employer opening their doors nearby. If that were the case, existing residents could potentially get jobs there and afford the new normal.

In this particular instance, you have an employer that is NOT nearby making the fact that this location is not nearby a non-issue for its employees and causing gentrification in a way that mostly leaves current residents out of the loop since it's not likely the average resident could get a job at Google. The results can be devastating situation depending. Some residents might only be getting by or barely getting ahead. Having to relocate could completely upset their financial balance in a way that they can't rectify.

At a minimum, people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own and it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.

The reason it's so visceral is because it's happening so quickly. And that's happening because housing stock is so limited. Complicating the issue is that transportation sucks so hard that there's nowhere else to go that isn't like being the other side of the moon. This is 30 years of bad policy coming home to roost.

A few thousand new people with money really shouldn't be this disruptive.

At a minimum, people's lives are being upended due to no fault of their own and it's quite clear where they should direct their energy.

Toward getting better skills, better jobs, or finding more affordable places to live if the first two don't work out?

Talk about fault, what fault is there with Google or its employees? The process you describe will happen regardless of where Google goes (since it can only go where supporting infrastructure exists). So Google and other high paying companies are terrible, evil companies regardless of where they go? How about their employees? Are they only allowed to live in their own offices at work? Since apparently they aren't allowed to choose where to live based on the location, rents, etc.

Sorry, but paying rent today (or for however long) does not entitle one to continue paying that same rent tomorrow and forever into the future. What you're entitled to is what's in your lease. If your lease says you can pay rent for the next 12 months at $1,000, there's absolutely nothing there saying you can pay that (or anything near that) 13 months from now. If you want the security of staying where you are, BUY; renting doesn't give you that and it shouldn't. This whole concept of some people being somehow entitled to continue residing in the same place simply because they've been there for a given period is patently absurd.

Gentrification is a net positive for an area. It makes the area nicer, increases the tax base without altering the individual tax burden, reduces crime for that area, and helps stamp out poverty. It won't be a net positive for every resident and that's fine. No change ever makes everyone happy all the time and it doesn't have to to be a net positive. How many crime-ridden ghettos of NYC have been completely turned around by gentrification?

Not everyone can afford to buy. That isn't a problem; it's an economic reality likely to persist as long as property exists as we know it.

Not everyone can afford food either, but the reality of that situation doesn't make it not a problem. The near-total impossibility for large swathes of the population obtain housing of their own, leaving them dependent on borrowing housing from others (which in itself perpetuates their inability to buy), is a problem. We cannot have a free and equal population when large chunks of it are dependent on others for a necessity of life like housing, and have almost no hope of even slowly or gradually working the

I read through that entire sentence-fragment of an article, and I still don't see what people are protesting. Are they just OWS hippsters and neo-anarchists who will protest anything that isn't run directly by the state? Perhaps they just don't like the fact that some people have money? Surely it's not because some people choose to carpool. I don't get it.

Do actually follow the link. Don't worry; there is a great big picture with a few words, so you don't have to read much.

The very first thing you should notice is that this is about more than property values. This is also, and perhaps primarily, about hate for technology and technologists. The black-and-white image of Levandowski's house doesn't say "so and so is pricing you out of your neighboorhood." It says:

Anthony Levandowski is building an unconscionable world of surveillance, control and automation. He is also your neighbor.

So at this point we should be all done soft-pedalling these people (a la this submission) as good but misguided folks in fear of "impact on the San Francisco Bay Area economy," or whatever. These are neo-luddite libtards fomenting hate and using surveillance to intimidate individuals.

I met Lewandowsky when he was an undergrad at Berkeley, building a self-driving motorcycle, while also running a startup to sell a two-screen display for field use at construction sites with a player for drawings. I was impressed. He does tend to deliver on his schemes.

The Google bus thing is impressive. Google now has a huge bus fleet. They're all the same, they're all huge, and they're all white and unmarked. They're more visible than the public bus lines, because they're concentrated in a few areas. Yesterday, I was caught in a traffic jam of Google buses in Mountain View.

One of those areas is the Mission District in San Francisco.
It's an OK low rent neighborhood, but not great or particularly cool. (SOMA, pre Dot Com Boom 1.0 was cool - lots of art galleries, performance spaces, clubs, warehouse parties - the fun things that need big, cheap spaces. That's over.)
I have friends living in the Mission. I've been there many times. It's not really being "gentrified". It's just that rents are going up on existing buildings, which is annoying residents. SOMA and Dogpatch have been redeveloped, with most of the old buildings replaced and most of the rest converted to residential lofts or such.

SF is driving out low-income people. Mayor Brown said a few years ago that no one making less than $50K a year should live in SF. Really. The Mission was one of the few cheap neighborhoods left that was merely poor, not awful. SF still has a few bad cheap neighborhoods, but they're under attack, building by building. The 6th Street corridor is still a druggie and flophouse area. But go a hundred feet off 6th and there are luxury lofts. The area of Market Street around 6th to 8th was also a big druggie/homeless area. Then Twitter HQ moved in there. As that area gets gentrified, the 6th St. corridor will be cut off from the Tenderloin across Market. We'll know that's happened when the last strip club there closes.

SF still has a few bad cheap neighborhoods, but they're under attack, building by building. The 6th Street corridor is still a druggie and flophouse area. But go a hundred feet off 6th and there are luxury lofts. The area of Market Street around 6th to 8th was also a big druggie/homeless area. Then Twitter HQ moved in there. As that area gets gentrified, the 6th St. corridor will be cut off from the Tenderloin across Market. We'll know that's happened when the last strip club there closes.

Dear God! What will San Francisco's good and decent law-abiding citizens do without crackhouses, whores, and the homeless?! Oh the humanity!

Really harms the legitimacy of someone's position, and is a terrible invasion.

Really needs to be illegal. I'm pro-civil liberties, but stuff like that should not be tolerated, and should be a felony for repeat offenses.

Disturbing someone at home because you don't like the implications of the technology he works on or the fact materials for it are mined in the Congo or whatever (bet the protestors own iPhone or use other tech that needs minerals) is frightening. Not only gov't can have a chilling effect!

Well, "Anonymous Coward", you should follow the money. Who does it hurt, really, for tech companies to bus their own people to work rather than have them drive their cars? Its much better on the environment, less traffic on the freeways, and better for the workers.Its not that they are busing their people to work, is it?Its the fact that they are not using MUNICIPAL i.e. government owned buses that exclusively use unionized workers, specifically SEIU, which has a habit of using this very tactic.

So the Silicon Valley Masters of the Universe are shuttled to work in their private Wi-Fi enabled comfort busses, free from having to deal with the riff-raff of society while the common folk are out their sucking on exhaust fumes.

I can't imagine a scenario where this turns out badly.

I can imagine one scenario -- if the buses stopped overnight and suddenly 30,000 people decided to drive to work instead of take a shuttle since public transit is so unusable for their commute. So instead of hundreds of buses, you'd have thousands of extra cars on the road.

That could actually be a net win for long time residents since the Googlers would move closer to work and rent in the city would fall back to affordable levels.

Unlikely - even if the buses stopped overnight, employees can't move overnight since they have leases and other logistics to deal with.

There's enough demand to live in SF from employees that do work in the city that as long as the economy keeps at its same level, housing freed up from Google workers that choose to live closer to Mountain View will be filled without a large drop in rents.

Sounds like the Tech companies need to get the hell out of Commie-Fornia.

They are no longer welcome, and that state HATES businesses with a passion.

If California hates tech companies so badly, then one must wonder why there are so many out there. I'm thinking that it takes more than cheap rent to attract a vibrant start-up culture. Perhaps it takes investment capital and qualified employees too. And good weather doesn't hurt either.

Sounds like the Tech companies need to get the hell out of Commie-Fornia.

They are no longer welcome, and that state HATES businesses with a passion.

More likely the city of San Fransisco hates having to provide the infrastructure for all of the tech businesses but not reap the benefits of tax revenues to pay for it because they built outside the city. States have this issue all the time, where the populace lives predominately in one state but work in the next state. It's not about being anti-business, it's about having to pay for the services provided.

Who is the bigger moron -- those that protest against a Google Developer for his work on technology, or someone that reads about a protest in Berkeley and tells the people of San Francisco to stop protesting?

That said, Google could pack up and leave SF without making difference in the economy -- there aren't *that* many Google employees in SF. But if all of the tech companies (iuncluding those with significant presence in SF) disappeared overnight (like they did during the original dot-com Bust), then it

Easy solution: These companies should open major offices in downtown San Francisco. Build a skyscraper (vertical campus!) that is walking distance from a BART subway stop. They already have one (very small) office in the downtown SF area (opened in 2007 [cnet.com]). Same with Yahoo (though they can't afford a skyscraper), who recently bought the old SF Chronicle building [bloomberg.com].

So the 55-year old candlestick makers were supposed to upgrade their skills or do what? Starve?
I think that tech advances are generally good, but this "Creative Destruction" comes at a cost to certain individuals in society who were unlucky/unconnected enough to choose the wrong profession.
You can't simply let all those people fend for themselves without any support.

The protesting slime seem to think they have a god given right to be where they are.

Wow. I think you would fit into Putin's (or Stalin's) Russia just fine.

I live in New York City. One area or another has been gentrifying since before they came up with the name. You know what this means? It means the city is healthy - there is an influx of new people. Yuppie types (who themselves, like these protesters, kicked out people as well) come in and move to the cheaper areas they can afford and make them fashionable. Some of them stay (and make more money as they advance), and some richer people move in now that

I find their choice of protest targets rather strange (If you think that autonomous vehicles are the biggest of your problems, or that Google is the major threat in that area, you are painfully uninformed...); but do you seriously expect people to just 'GTFO' (and to where?) whenever technological change comes knocking? Economic threats are one of the few things that reliably get people worked up, and technological change definitely is one, if you are the one being rendered obsolete at a given time.

That's all well and good when the jobs are still there, they're just changing. That candlestick maker, he can retrain to work on robots ! But when jobs are shed and not replaced, this will eventually lead to big problems. Shaming the unemployed is not so effective when there are no jobs.